The recaptcha API has changed, breaking the form. I’ll investigating fixing this. Meantime if you need to edit something and have a Mendeley account you can log in and fix the problem, or leave a comment on the page with the error and I will fix the problem.

When you get to the end of the taxonomic tree it shows 1,2,3 or whatever references, but no link to the actual references. (On safari anyway). Suggest adding it (possibly higher taxa too) as a side-table as you browse.

Having the ability to zoom in the item's page to make it more readable would be nice. You might need a slightly wider view for that as it would be nice to have the whole page fit horizontally, but still be easily readable. Would be nice, though, to keep it within the clean design you've created.

Yes, absolutely need something like this. For now I just open the image in a new window if I need to look at it. One option would be a lightbox-style approach (I already use this to look at Reference Finder search results). I do like the idea of keeping the image within the bounds of the current viewer.

I only got one hit from 'Bombus' as a search term. The heading 'Search' could be 'Search results' as on the first search I was not sure I had found any results at all. You may want to offer a hint that other searches are possible, e.g. Bombus Lucorum and Bombus Pascuorum also yield results.

First attempt to deal with this adds check that ending page (epage) and issue (“issue”) in database match OpenURL query. If OpenURL string has issue, and this matches the one in the database then we accept the match. If ending pages match, we check that titles have > 90% match (if OpenURL atitle field is set).

Being able to submit plain text version of a bibliography with wide coverage for a given field of study (say taxonomy of a genus or family) would add batches of known articles to the set already known to the system. Any one-time processing of such articles would be performed in a "batch mode" improving statistics for the areas for which such bibliographies were submitted. Searches for information on individual taxa would be linked to a (nearly) maximal set of articles. in literature which is otherwise difficult to access. When a nomenclator is constructed (for example) all the articles utilized should be submitted to Biostor in a batch.

Being able to submit plain text version of a bibliography with wide coverage for a given field of study (say taxonomy of a genus or family) would add batches of known articles to the set already known to the system. Any one-time processing of such articles would be performed in a "batch mode" improving statistics for the areas for which such bibliographies were submitted. Searches for information on individual taxa would be linked to a (nearly) maximal set of articles. in literature which is otherwise difficult to access. When a nomenclator is constructed (for example) all the articles utilized should…

I’m planning to do something like this. Initially I’ll look at extracting specimen codes (which include museum codes), mainly because I’m interested in citation of museum specimens, but also because if the specimens are georeferenced we can then georeference taxa and publications about those taxa.

Jeffreys, J. G. (1859). "Further gleanings in British Conchology." Annals and Magazine of Natural History (3)3: 30-43, 106-120. It could, of course, be treated as though it were two articles, but this gets cumbersome when an article has numerous continuations.

Damn those pesky insects. Yes, paging is clearly needed, as is some way of ordering the results by “relevance”. Taxonomic coverage may be a useful criterion — presumably if you search for a higher taxon name you’d like the top hits to be articles that cover a lot of that taxon, rather than, say, a single species.